Prove Invertibility of Square Matrix A & ATA

  • Thread starter Thread starter iamsmooth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Click For Summary
A square matrix A is invertible if and only if the matrix ATA is also invertible. The discussion emphasizes that the determinant of a matrix plays a crucial role in determining invertibility; specifically, a matrix is invertible if its determinant is non-zero. Participants suggest using the property that the determinant of a product of matrices equals the product of their determinants to establish the relationship between A and ATA. The conversation encourages breaking down the proof into two parts to demonstrate both directions of the statement. Overall, the key takeaway is that the invertibility of A directly correlates with the invertibility of ATA through their determinants.
iamsmooth
Messages
103
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that asquare matrix A is invertible if nad only if ATA is invertible


Homework Equations


Hmm, can't think of any. A A-1 = I maybe?


The Attempt at a Solution



I have trouble with these theory questions, so I'm not sure how to approach this.

If something is invertible, that means it's determinant is not 0? So does it have something to do with that?

Thanks :o
 
Physics news on Phys.org


If you aren't good at "theory" questions, then try rephrasing them as "calculation" questions!

If something is invertible, that means it's determinant is not 0?
And vice versa as well, right? If the determinant is not zero, then it's invertible. So we have an identity:
{X is invertible} = {det X is not zero}​

What happens if you substitute this into the original question? (There are two things to substitute! Do both!) Is it something that you can solve by doing two calculations?
 


A square matrix A is invertible if and only if ATA is invertible

Well, If A is invertible, then det(A) is not 0.

det(A) = det(AT)

The poduct of two invertible matrices is invertible

So therefore ATA is invertible if and only if A is invertible.

This doesn't seem like proof, nor does it seem coherent :( I suck
 


You have the right idea but try to show both directions separately.
If A is invertible, then det(A) is non zero. So what can you say about det(AAT)?
Similarly, if det(AAT) is non zero, what can you say about det(A)?
(Also remember that det(AB) = det(A)det(B))
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K